life refuges and managed shooting areas have been established in TVA reservoir areas. The attachment shows the extent to which TVA lands and waters have been made available and utilized for these purposes. It is significant that as many as 300,000 ducks and geese winter in the Tennessee Valley now, as compared with practically none before the TVA dams were built. Likewise the fishing resources of the TVA reservoirs have been developed and managed through the cooperative efforts of TVA and the state agencies in such manner that these reservoirs are considered to be among the prime fishing areas of the country. Some 600,000 acres of TVA waters are open to year-around fishing under regulation of state fish and game agencies. An estimated 850,000 sport fishermen harvest about 7,000 tons of fish annually, and in the process spend more than $40 million to boost the local economy. Commercial fishermen take an additional 4,000 to 5,000 tons worth about $3 million at retail markets. This experience demonstrates, we believe, that there is no need for a statutory requirement that TVA take proper account of fish and wildlife resources in its water resources development program. Moreover, application of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act which emphasizes a single-purpose program and method of administrtaion to the TVA unified multipurpose program, would. in our opinion, have an adverse effect on the latter. In planning a project, TVA considers all the various purposes to which the project may reasonably be expected to contribute in obtaining the greatest public benefit therefrom. These may include navigation, flood control, power generation, recreation, agriculture, water supply, water quality control, and commercial and industrial development. as well as fish and wildlife enhancement. To provide for review and approval of its plans by the Fish and Wildilfe Service and the state fish and game agencies with respect to fish and wildlife benefits would give undue emphasis to that particular phase of the TVA program and would violate the basic principle of administration established by the Congress for the unified Tennessee Valley program under which the TVA Board is given responsibility in the development of all the resources. In our opinion, this course would hinder the unified approach that has been successfully demonstrated, and for that reason we urge that TVA's exemption under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act be retained. The Bureau of the Budget advises that it has no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program. Sincerely yours, AUBREY J. WAGNER, Chairman. TVA land and water used for Federal and State wildlife programs, June 30, 1965 1 Includes both land and water be'ow maximum shoreline contour, and the entire area is subject to permanent or periodic flooding. * Includes Central Peninsula, a 24,300-acre multipurpose recreation-conservation area. [H.R. 14455, 89th Cong., 2d sess.] A BILL To repeal section 9 of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Unued States of America in Congress assembled, That section 9 of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 666c) is hereby repealed. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Hon. EDWARD A. GARMATZ, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your request of April 20, 1966, for the views of this Department on H.R. 14455, a bill "To repeal section 9 of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act." The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401), as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-666c), provides for recognition of the contribution of our wildlife resources to the Nation, the increasing public interest in them and their significance to our economy. It provides that wildlife conservation shall receive equal consideration and be coordinated with other features of water-resource development programs. It authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to provide assistance to and cooperate with Federal, State, and public or private agencies and organizations in the development, protection, rearing and stocking of all species of wildlife, resources thereof, and their habitat; to make surveys and investigations of the wildlife of the public domain; and to accept donations of land and contributions of funds in furtherance of its purposes. Section 9 of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act exempts the provisions of the Act from application to the Tennessee Valley Authority. H.R. 14455 would repeal that exemption. Since the provisions of H.R. 14455 relate to the program and responsibilities of another agency of the Federal Government, this Department refrains from any comment on the bill. The Bureau of the Budget advises that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program. Sincerely yours, ORVILLE L. FREEMAN, Secretary. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION, Hon. EDWARD A. GARMATZ, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, DEAR MR. GARMATZ: You have requested the views and recommendations of the Atomic Energy Commission on H.R. 14455, a bill "To repeal section 9 of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act." Section 9 of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act provides that the Act shall not apply to the Tennessee Valley Authority. The AEC considers that the bill would not affect any of its activities and we, therefore, have no views or recommendations on the proposed legislation. Cordially, GLENN T. SEABORG, Chairman. Hon. EDWARD A. GARMATZ, FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In response to your request of April 20, 1966, the Commission wishes to advise the Committee that we have no comments to offer on the subject bill. Sincerely, LEE C. WHITE, Chairman. (COMMITTEE NOTE: The Department of the Interior and the Tennessee Valley Authority reports may be found on p. 114 and p. 115, respectively.) Mr. DINGELL. The Chair notes that the Honorable Lee C. White, Chairman of the Federal Power Commission, has a board meeting which he would like to attend this morning, and has asked permission to testify first. Mr. White, the Chair is most happy to welcome you, and to hear whatever testimony you may care to give. The Chair notes that you are accompanied by members of your staff, and it would be a pleasure for the committee to have both members of your staff present with you to be at the committee table with you. I am sure you would like to introduce those members of your staff who are present this morning. STATEMENT OF HON. LEE C. WHITE, CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION; ACCOMPANIED BY F. STEWART BROWN, CHIEF, BUREAU OF POWER; M. FRANK THOMAS, CHIEF, DIVISION OF LICENSED PROJECTS; RICHARD A. SOLOMON, GENERAL COUNSEL; JOHN C. MASON, DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL; DAVID J. BARDIN, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL; JAMES N. WOOD, ATTORNEY; GEORGE GLEASON, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE CHAIRMAN; AND FORREST R. HAUCK, FISHERIES BIOLOGIST, FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION Mr. WHITE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Present with me today are Mr. Stewart Brown, the Chief of the Bureau of Power, and Mr. Frank Thomas, who is the Chief of the Division of Licensed Projects. In addition, Mr. Forrest Hauck, who is the Commission's specialist in the area of fish and wildlife. He came to us from the State of Idaho Department of Fish and Game, where he served for 20 years. Mr. Hauck has been of considerable assistance to the Commission in this area that is of such importance to this committee. In addition, there is Mr. Richard Solomon, the General Counsel of the Federal Power Commission; Mr. John Mason, the Deputy General Counsel; and Mr. George Gleason, of my own staff. Mr. DINGELL. Gentlemen, you are certainly welcome. Mr. WHITE. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to present the views of the Federal Power Commission on proposed amendments to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act being considered by the subcommittee. The Commission's formal reports on these bills have been previously submitted to the committee, and I assume they will be incorporated in the record. In view of the chairman's opening remarks, I am pleased to make that statement. Mr. DINGELL. The committee is pleased with the spirit shown by the Federal Power Commission in this matter. Mr. WHITE. The conservation and enhancement of our fish and wildlife resources, for both commercial and recreational purposes, is a matter of concern to the Federal Power Commission in connection with our hydropower licensing responsibilities under part I of the Federal Power Act. We also seek to make a contribution to these important goals through our memberships on the Water Resources Council and the Council on Recreation and Natural Beauty. The Federal Power Act itself provides for hydro licensing on the broad standard of comprehensive, multipurpose development. The Commission may approve only such projects as it finds to be *** best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing a waterway *** for the use or benefit of interstate or foreign commerce, for * * * water power development, and for other beneficial uses, including recreational purposes * And I have just now read from the Federal Power Act. The term "other beneficial uses" includes fish and wildlife uses. Thus, enactment of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act in 1934, and its amendments in 1946 and 1958, complemented the Federal Power Act by providing for the preparation of reports by the Department of the Interior on fish and wildlife matters in connection with license applications, and for the full consideration of such reports by the Commission as part of the record on which it bases its final decision. My comments today focus on the proposal in H.R. 9492 which could have the effect of delaying applications for licenses under the Federal Power Act by prohibiting Commission action until the Department of the Interior has completed all fish and wildlife studies which the Secretary believes are necessary and has made its consequent recommendations. We are in complete sympathy with the objective of the comprehensive fish and wildlife studies, and have for some time been working with the Interior Department to develop improved procedures for securing views on these aspects of the application submitted to the Commission for consideration. It is our considered opinion that existing statutory authority is completely adequate to achieve the purposes of section 1 of H.R. 9492. These improved Interior-FPC arrangements should preserve the Commission's ultimate responsibility and accountability for the administration of the Power Act, while assuring an even more effective consideration of fish and wildlife matters in the licensing process than would enactment of section 1 of H.R. 9492. These new arrangements are proposed in a rulemaking proceeding initiated by FPC notice of April 19, 1966, in docket No. R-303, a copy of which is attached to our formal report to the committee. Public comments on the proposed new rule are due May 19, 1966. It may be helpful to explain the reasons for proposing the new rule and what we hope it will accomplish. Under existing FPC rules a developer may first seek a preliminary permit for up to 3 years, under subsection 4(f) and section 5 of the Power Act, for the purpose of maintaining priority of application for a license while the company plans and designs its projects. In issuing the preliminary permit, the Commission requires full cooperation with the fish and wildlife agencies, so that problem of coordination rarely arise where preliminary permits have been issued. However, an applicant is also free to omit the preliminary-permit procedure in favor of a full-blown license application, presenting fully developed proposed plans for a hydropower project, without consulting the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the comparable State agency. Upon the filing of any application, the FPC always seeks agency comments, in compliance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. Moreover, as our formal report indicates, the FPC has consistently granted the Fish and Wildlife Service extensions of time in which to complete its report where this has been necessary. Despite the satisfactory operations of the past, coordination can be made even more effective, and thus we have sought to achieve this goal through the new rulemaking proceeding. Under the proposed rule, applicants for a license to construct substantial projects, defined to be those of more than 2,000 horsepower, or seeking a new license after expiration of the initial license period, would be required to consult with the Federal and State fish and wildlife agencies before filing their license applications, and to develop a plan for conservation of fish and wildlife resources, and for their enhancement, if possible. The application itself would have to include: 1. A report on the effect of the project on fish and wildlife resources in the area. 2. Proposals for conservation and enhancement of such resources, including functional design drawings of necessary facilities or developments. 3. A statement on the nature and extent of the applicant's consultation and cooperation with the fish and wildlife agencies. We believe such a rule would facilitate the most careful consideration of fish and wildlife problems at the earliest stages of project planning, when such consideration is particularly influential. We expect that in some cases involving extended investigations, the applicants will advance funds to the fish and wildlife agencies to make careful studies in the early planning stages. We are confident that the activities of the agencies and the applicants' own consultants in the preapplication period will bear fruit in the quality of their conservation proposals. It goes without saying, of course, that there may still arise conflicts between fish and wildlife benefits and other beneficial public uses. In such cases, the Commission will have to resolve the conflicts, as it would under H.R. 9492. However, the proposed rule is designed to give both the applicant and the Commission the benefit of the most competent and considered available ideas from the fish and wildlife standpoint for protecting, and, in many cases, enhancing these resources. We therefore believe that administrative action along the lines of the proposed rule would better solve the problem to which section 1 of II.R. 9492 is addressed. Section 2 of H.R. 9492 would amend the Fish and Wildlife Act by authorizing an appropriation of $500,000 for the Secretary of the |